Debate Rounds (3)
If you are born to be gay you are an "accident of nature". Research has proven that being gay is not a disease.
Research: (1) http://www.helem.net...
"Homosexuality was considered as a mental illness by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) until 1973". This nullifies you argument calling it a deformity. Therefore, calling it a deformity is in an opinion. Of which gives you no sound proof of it being an accident of nature. Also, "On January 1, 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) removed homosexuality from its list of diseases." (1) WHO has removed homosexuality from the list of diseases. Thus, not making homosexuality a handicap.
Now for a second lets call homosexuality an "illness". Why do gay people get kill, bullied, hurt, emotionally, and physically abused? Aren't you suppose to treat people who are ill in a kind and loving manner? When my friend is sick I don't say "Omg, you have strep throat. You should die. You don't deserve to breathe the same air as me." The way people treat homosexuality is not as a way of illness which proves people do not think of it as an illness. If people though of it as an illness they would give you soup and say "Hope the gay goes away." Being gay is not an illness the way people treat homosexuality proves my point.
Normal. Funny choice of words. Could you tell me what is normal? Normal is such a vague word. Normal can mean literally anything. Nothing is normal. Technology is not normal in comparison to human's roots. Superheros are not normal but we think they are awesome. Normal is not normal.
"Those that choose it are just sick."
Again, as I mentioned previously , homosexuality is not an illness. For sake of argument, lets replace the word sick with "bad". Now what I do not understand is, why does my choice in who I love make any difference to another person?
In conclusion, homosexuality cannot be classified as an illness. It is normal because normal is a vague word meaning anything. Who I love does not hurt anyone. Honestly, if anyone is hurting themselves it is you because of all this hate in your body. I am not the one causing your hate you are. Hate, as well, as anger is an individual emotion that can only be controlled by the person who has it. Therefore, if it is a choice, why does choosing who you love hurt anyone?
Love is love.
In my first reply to you I only wrote one short paragraph. In that statement I think I addressed how I would treat someone with any handicap. I don't think I mentioned anywhere that I hated or wanted anyone to not breath the same air as me.
My point is that homosexuality is not normal. My biggest problem is with the gay agenda. I don't believe it should be promoted as a normal life style. Because it clearly is not. Having said that does not mean anyone should be denied the right to love whom they want as long as it is "mutual". But there are consequences when we try to normalize something that is primarily based on an abnormal sexual preference. In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring.
When it comes to marriage the argument is why can't I legally marry the one I love. I submit that the reason that the state got involved with marriage in the first place was because of offspring. It's a contract between a man and a woman that puts children first and their love secondary. And it is my opinion (but not just mine) children need a mother and a father. If you are gay maybe you cannot see that. Yes gay couples are capable of loving children too. But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument. Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary. It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are. To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal.
You should watch this YouTube video it maybe an eye opener. ----->
I thank my opponent for a compelling argument.
Being a homosexual is as "normal" as being left-handed. You can not choose to be left handed but they are treated as the so called "normal". Studies have proven that being a homosexual is normal. For instance, I don't like fish; however, I do like pasta. Does this make me "abnormal"?
"In the case of same sex interaction you cannot have offspring."
Some heterosexuals can not have kids; therefore, this nullifies that statement because not being able to have kids as a heterosexual and not being able to have kids as a gay couple is the same. Also, there are many children that are put up for adoption that deserve a good home, so everyone does not need to have offspring.
"But the need for a mother and a father trump that argument."
My uncle died when my cousin was 2 years old. My aunt never got remarried since then or has even had a boyfriend since then. Therefore, my cousin has had no father for 20 years. Yet, he is still a man and doing just fine. Forget about same sex parenting for a second. It seems like you oppose single parenting as well since there is one gender in the household.
"Also the sexual nature of that kind of union is not healthy for nurturing children. In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America."
"In their attempt to normalize Homosexuality the gay agenda has forced it's belief on The Boy Scouts of America. Something I feel was completely unnecessary."
Not letting a human join a group for the sole reason it that they are a homosexual is absurd. Like I said in the first round, being a homosexual is normal (if you would like me to use that word). You have not provided any research to back you beliefs. However, I have provided you with proven research. The WHO has taken homosexuality off their list of diseases. Again, being a homosexual is as normal as being left handed.
"It's supposed to be a free country. The idea that their political motivation was more important than preserving the values that the scouts held is indicative of who they are."
You honestly can not but "free country" but imply denying homosexuals to be a Boy Scout in the same sentence. Free country means I have and opportunity to be whatever I want. But, then saying you can't be a cub scout is quite hypocritical.
"To be clear, I am talking about the those that belong to the gay organizations that promote these political ideals. To me this just strengthens my belief that homosexuality should not be treated as normal."
Yes, gay people do promote them to do this. However, they are not holding a gun to their head saying change this or we will kill you. Therefore, changing the rules was their decisions. Even if it was influenced by them, in the end it was still their decision.
I hope the research I have provided you might expand your views on the homosexual community. But, without research and proven facts I assume that you have nothing proving what you state. For instance, you have given no proof that gay people are not normal. You have also not given any proof that you need two different genders in order to be a good family. However, I do respect your opinion.
Thank you for taking the time to debate and have a nice day.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by jzonda415 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was really compelling to me. The resolution was too vague to have a truly good debate. Conduct in this was a tie. S&G was okay, saw some mistakes on both sides, but overall nothing to get deducted for. Convincing arguments go to Pro. Con didn't provide really good arguments against homosexualitly, most of his arguments were arguments you might find in the opinion section. Pro successfully debunked most of Con's opinions which Con never responded to. If it weren't for the final round, I probably wouldn't even vote on this debate, for that's where most of the debating occurred. And with Con's unsourced claims being refuted by Pro's actual numbers and coherent reasoning, it is a easy win for Pro. Sources go to Pro for having them.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.